Jurisdiction: Subject Matter & Personal

• The notes comprehensively cover jurisdiction, including subject matter and personal jurisdiction, as well diversity jurisdiction, and the related clauses. They also address former adjudication and cases related to personal jurisdiction, offering rules and context for understanding civil procedure.

Two Types of Jurisdiction

• Subject matter jurisdiction concerns whether the action involves federal law (statutes or the U.S. Constitution), thus creating a federal question under 28 § U.S.C 1331
• Subject matter jurisdiction also questions the involvement of citizens from different states, with the amount in controversy being $75k or higher, indicating a diversity question under 28 § U.S.C 1332
• Subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived by the defendant and involves a court's power over certain types of cases
• Personal jurisdiction assesses whether the defendant has sufficient ties to the state where the federal court is located
• Personal jurisdiction also considers if the defendant had enough contact with the state to justify litigation there
• Personal jurisdiction can be waived by the defendant and involves a court's power over a person or party
• Both personal and subject matter jurisdiction are necessary for a court to render a binding decision in a case

Personal Jurisdiction

• Personal jurisdiction is a state's ability to assert power over a defendant in a civil lawsuit
• Jurisdiction in this context refers to the power to declare law
• Judicial jurisdiction is a court's power to enter a judgment respected and enforced by other courts and government agencies

Determining Diversity Jurisdiction

• A person's "citizenship" for diversity jurisdiction is determined by their domicile. For adults, domicile is established by physical presence in a place in connection with a certain state of mind concerning one's intent to remain.

Fisher v. Ciba Specialty Chemicals Corporation

• Individual trials are unwarranted if a single trial would be more efficient, the parties' claims/defenses arise from the same transaction, and potential prejudice to the defendants can be averted by jury instructions in multi-plaintiff lawsuits

Gordon v. T.G.R. Logistics, Inc.

• Information is discoverable if it is not privileged, relevant to a claim or defense, and proportional to the case's needs

Houchens v. American Home Assurance Co

• Summary judgment is proper after adequate discovery time if a party fails to establish an essential element of their case where they bear the burden of proof.

Norton v. Snapper Power Equipment

• A court should consider evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and grant judgment only where the evidence strongly favors the moving party when considering entering judgment notwithstanding the verdict

Ison v. Thomas

• All claims against a single defendant arising out of the same transaction, or series of connected transactions, must be brought in a single action

Former Adjudication

• Claim preclusion (res judicata) bars new litigation on claims that were or could have been litigated in the original action
• Issue preclusion (collateral estoppel) bars re-litigation of issues already decided in a court's prior decision

Res Judicata

• Parties must bring forward their whole case, and res judicata applies not only to points the court was required by the parties to form an opinion on , but also to every point which properly belonged to the subject of litigation and which parties, exercising reasonable diligence, might have brought forward at the time.

Final Decision

• A "final decision” of a district court “ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the courts to do but execute the judgement.”
• "On the merits" in this context only includes lack of subject matter jurisdiction

Reise v. Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin

• Trial court decisions regarding discovery matters are interlocutory orders, rather than final orders, and cannot be appealed prior to a final order

Discovery Order

• Discovery order is non-appealable
• Appellate courts would almost always affirm discovery orders because discovery orders are discretionary determination by district court
• Appeals from discovery orders would create unnecessary delay
• Costs to the judicial system for such appeals outweigh correcting "erroneous discovery orders"

Final Decisions

• Once a final decision (resolving the merits of a case in their entirety) is entered, a party can appeal any adverse order (including discovery)
• This avoids piecemeal appeal– at the end of a case, an aggrieved party may file ONE appeal form all adverse

Personal Jurisdiction Cases

• Pennoyer: Develops PJ & Due Process (notice & opportunity to respond) relates to due process
• Miliken: there's PJ over a person in their state of domicile
• International Shoe: Minimum Contacts Test Corps (pg 81), considers minimum amounts of contact
• McGee v Int'l Life: the court's tendency to expand jurisdiction is more based on minimum contacts
• Hanson (trust case): Purposeful Availment + Unilateral Acts of Plaintiff Law
• Shaffer (1 stock share): Minimum Contacts Test applies to individual People

Pennoyer v. Neff

• Under the Due Process Clause, no person is subject to the jurisdiction of a court unless they voluntarily appear, are found within the state, reside in the state, or have property in the state that the court has attached

State Exercise of Personal Jurisdiction Over a Non-Resident

• In Pennoyer, the court says there can be jurisdiction over a nonresident with land in a state if the person receives actual notice (personally served with process) and is served within the border of the state

Full Faith & Credit Clause (Art. 4, Sec1)

• Each state must recognize and enforce judgments of other states
• If a court lacks jurisdiction to enter a judgment, the judgment will be invalid and will not get full faith and credit

Fourteenth Amendment, Due Process Clause

• No state shall deprive any person of life liberty or property, without due process of law
• Due process includes notice and the opportunity to be heard
• Satisfaction of due process means the decision at the conclusion of proceedings will equal a valid judgment outcome

Choice of Law

• Example: diversity tort case (parties from different states) in a federal court; what state tort law applies
• If there is an applicable federal statute, federal & state must apply the federal statute.
• If there is no federal statute, federal courts apply state law

Personal Jurisdiction Elements

• Personal jurisdiction requires notice of law via Due Process, Judgment via Full Faith and Credit, and Execution of Judgement via Due Process and Full Faith and Credit.

Service of Process Types

• Actual Notice is handing the defendants the physical papers for service of process, directly notifying defendants of the lawsuit
• Constructive Notice provides notice to a defendant who cannot be found by publishing "notice" in a newspaper
• Defendant probably won't see constructive notice

Terminology

• An in rem action is a proceeding where property is the direct object of the action, such as a foreclosure action on a home
• An in personam action may be brought against a person

Milliken v. Meyer

• Domicile in the state alone is sufficient to bring an absent defendant within the reach of the state's jurisdiction for purposes of a personal judgement by appropriate substituted service
• Whether the service is adequate for due process purposes hinges on whether the form of substituted service provided for such cases and employed is reasonably calculated to give defendant actual notice of proceedings

International Shoe Co. v. Washington

• For a defendant not present within the territory of a forum to be subjected to a court's in personam jurisdiction, due process requires that the defendant have certain minimum contacts with the forum such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice

Minimum Contacts

• Due process requires only that to subject a defendant to a judgment in personam, they have certain minimum contacts with it such that maintenance of the suit does not offend "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice" if he be not present within the territory of the forum

• A corporate entity's “presence” can be manifested only by activities carried on its behalf by those authorized to act for it

• Courts will deem activities of corporation's agent within the state which the activities presence and present symbolize those activities of the corporation's agent within the state which the courts will deem to be sufficient to satisfy due process,

• Corporate presence exists when the activities are continuous and systematic in the forum state

• Casual presence of a corporate agent or single/isolated act by agency on behalf of corporation is not enough to establish presence

McGee v. International Life Insurance Co

• A state court has jurisdiction over an out-of-state company if the company has substantial connections with the state

Hanson v. Denckla (1958)

• A defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction only if the defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum state

Shaffer v. Heitner (1977)

• Quasi in rem jurisdiction may be asserted only if the interests of the persons in the property seized have sufficient contacts, ties, or relations to the state

General vs. Specific Jurisdiction

• General jurisdiction: a defendant can be sued in their home state over any matter
• Specific jurisdiction: defendant's actions (under due process) are to subject a corporation to the states tribunals only in relation to suit involving the conduct committed in that state, jurisdiction extends to the specific acts performed in the state and nothing else
• Quasi in rem: property is used as a “jurisdictional hook” to get a defendant in court in a matter not related to the property

World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson

• Foreseeability alone is not sufficient to authorize a state court's assertion of personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant that has no contacts, ties, or relations with the forum state

Minimum Contacts via International Shoe

• A corporation is “present “ and has “minimum contact” with a state if its activities are “continuous and systematic" in the forum state. (81)

• Casual presence of corporate agent or single/isolated acts by agent on behalf of corporation is not enough to establish presence and is not a mechanical test

• Bolstering "minimum contacts" policy factors that MAY be considered in determining fairness/reasonableness: Forum's state interest in adjudicating the dispute, Plaintiff's interest in obtaining convenient and effective relief, & interstate judicial system's interest in obtaining most efficient resolution of controversies.

• Include shared interest of states in furthering fundamental substantive social justice.

• Foreseeability (based on the mere offering a product for sale) alone is insufficient.

Purposeful Availment

• One must use purposeful availment and to not use foreseeability regarding personal jurisdiction EVER
• Foreseeability has nothing to do with personal jurisdiction, and the court's precedent makes clear that it is the defendant's ACTIONS, NOT his EXPECTATIONS, that empowers a State's courts to subject him to judgement
• Conduct towards the jurisdiction from the defendants must be assessed

J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro

• For a defendant to be subject to a state's personal jurisdiction, it must purposefully avail itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state, thus invoking the benefits and protections of that state's laws.

Defendants Can Submit to a State's Jurisdictional Authority by

• Consenting to jurisdiction
• Establishing presence within a state when suit commences through service of process.
• Possessing citizenship or domicile in the state (home).
• For corporations, the state of incorporation or the principal place of business (PPB) are adequate to show submission to a state's jurisdictional authority; all are sources of General Jurisdiction

Defendant's Submission to State Jurisdictional Authority

• Purposefully availing itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its law via purposeful availment, defendant submits to the judicial power of an otherwise foreign sovereign
• Purposeful availment is contact with an activity directed at a sovereign; this may justify specific jurisdiction ‘in a suit arising out of or related to the defendant's contacts with the forum."

Abdouch v. Lopez

• Personal jurisdiction over a party is proper if the party engaged in conduct purposely directed at the forum state

Zippo "Sliding Scale" Test

• Interactivity & the focus point is whether conduct underlying the claim was purposely directed at the forum state, when analyzing interactivity

• If the defendant knowingly and repeatedly transmits computer files over the internet, then personal jurisdiction is more likely

• If the defendant simply posts info on an internet Web Site accessible to users in foreign jurisdiction, a passive website without more, then personal jurisdiction less likely.

• Middle ground is when the site is interactive website with user exchanging info with the host, and level of interactivity & nature of the exchange of info should be examined

Problem with the Zippo Test

• The Court seems to distance itself from the pure Zippo test because it doesn't have an element of looking at the defendant's contacts with a state

Calder Effects Test

• A defendant's tortious act can create PJ only when Plaintiff makes a prima facie showing the defendant's acts:
  • Were intentional;
  • Were uniquely and expressly aimed at the forum state, &
  • Caused harm, the brunt of which was suffered and which the defendant knew was likely to be suffered in the forum state

Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown

• A state court may not exercise general jurisdiction over a foreign subsidiary of a United States-based corporation unless it engages in continuous and systematic activities as to render it essentially at home in the forum state

Daimler AG v. Bauman

• A court cannot assert general jurisdiction over a corporation if the corporation's affiliations with the forum state are not so continuous and systematic as to render the corporation at home in the state

Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court

For a state court to assert specific jurisdiction, there must be an affiliation between the forum state and the specific claim at issue

• General “All-Purpose” Jurisdiction and Specific “Case-Linked” Jurisdiction need
• Individual: domicile
• U.S. corp: PPB, place of incorp.
• Foreign corp withcontinuous & systematic activities
• A court with general jurisdiction can hear ANY claim against a defendant.
• Case arises from defendant's contacts with the forum.
• There needs to be an adequate link between the state and the defendants' claims

Jurisdiction & Foreign Corporations

• General Jurisdiction: “A court may assert general jurisdiction over foreign corporations to bar any and all claims against them when their affiliations with the State are so 'continuous and systematic' as to render them essentially at home in the forum state."
• Specific Jurisdiction: Confines to resolving issues “deriving from, or connected with, the controversy that establishes jurisdiction."
• Looking at litigation-based connection to the forum state

Burnham v. Superior Court

• A nonresident is properly served if he is physically present in the forum state, and the forum state may exercise personal jurisdiction over him without violating due process.

Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute

• A forum-selection clause is not fundamentally unfair solely because the clause was not negotiated

Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co

• Notice must be reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections

Piper Aircraft v. Reyno Supreme Court

• A plaintiff may not defeat a motion to dismiss on grounds of forum non conveniens merely by showing that the substantive law that would be applied in the alternative forum is less favorable to the plaintiff than that of the present forum

28 U.S.C. 1404

• For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it may have been brought or to any district or division to which parties have consented for Forums Non Conveniens.

Non Conveniens Factors

• Private Interest: Ease of accessing proof; & availability of compulsory process for unwilling witnesses

• Cost of obtaining attendance of witness, proximity to place where incident occurred (if viewing necessary), and "all other practical problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious, and inexpensive." make up private interest issues

• Public Interest: Admin difficulties from court congestion local interest in having a local controversy decided at home & diversity action tried in forums that is home to the law governing the action

• Avoidance of conflicts of law or application of foreign law & unfair burden of jury duty for cases unrelated to forum help resolve conflict

• Only when the “remedy provided by the alternative forum is so clearly inadequate or unsatisfactory that is no remedy at all, [will] the unfavorable change in law be given substantial weight."

Atlantic Marine Construction v. United States District Court

• If parties have entered into a valid forum-selection clause that designates a federal venue, the case should be transferred to the designated district unless extraordinary circumstances exist that are unrelated to the convenience of the parties
• When there is a forum selection clause & a lawsuits is NOT Filed in the Specified Forum
• When the parties have agreed to a valid forum-selection clause, a district court should ordinarily TRANSFER the case to the forum specified in that clause

Personal Jurisdiction vs. Venue vs. Forum Non Conveniens

• Personal jurisdiction: Does a particular state have power over the defendant?
• Venue: If the forum state has jurisdiction, what district within the state is an appropriate place to exercise that power?
• Forum Non Conveniens: A court may decline to exercise personal jurisdiction or venue if another forum would be more convenient for the witnesses or the parties